>> in a practical sense, rupert murdoch owns "the wall street journal," the "new york post," which he subsidizes, $50 to $60 million a year, we read. what would it mean if he were able, under this rule, to buy the "chicago tribune" and the "los angeles times"? >> and he owns fox television, of course. >> of course. >> i think, i mean again, it's not to just pick on murdoch. i think the idea that one person, who, in this case, happens to be a right-wing billionaire, can have that much influence in media is very dangerous for our democracy. and by the way, of course, in terms of murdoch he owns a lot of media in australia, in the united kingdom. i believe he owns media in eastern europe. i think this is a pretty dangerous trend. you know, the bottom line is that when you have a situation like that, it really influences not just what the american people think and feel, how they vote, but the issues that the united states congress deal with every day.